Rumors of Novell Linux ban greatly exaggerated

Misconceptions about GPL3 licensing issues have spawned rumors that the FSF …

A Reuters article published earlier this week erroneously claimed that Novell "could be banned from selling Linux," leaving many Linux enthusiasts befuddled and confused. The article states that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is deliberating on the prospect of rescinding Novell's right to distribute Linux "under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March," and that Novell "would have to boost spending on research and development to upgrade its software without access to the latest versions of the open-source code provided by the Foundation."

Those of us who understand the mechanics of open source licensing immediately recognize the deficiencies of the Reuters story. The FSF doesn't have any direct control over Linux or Linux licensing, so the notion that they could somehow revoke Novell's Linux distribution rights is a bit absurd. The FSF's legal experts have already confirmed that the deal between Microsoft and Novell does not violate the GPL, though many claim that it deviates from the "spirit" of the license.

Linux is licensed under the GPL2 and it is highly unlikely that the Linux kernel development community will adopt the GPL3. Although many projects include a "GPL2 or later" clause, the Linux kernel license does not. As a result, the FSF can't use licensing to prevent Novell from distributing Linux.

The article quotes Eben Moglen, the FSF's general counsel, who says that "the community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it." Between the FSF's vocal disapproval of the patent deal and ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of altering the GPL3 to explicitly prohibit such deals, it isn't too hard to imagine how the author of the Reuters article arrived at his misconception.

Although the FSF has no control over the Linux kernel, the organization does have control over the licensing of certain userspace components, like the C library GNU libc, that are essential to the basic operations of functioning Linux distributions. Some have speculated that the FSF may try to alter the GPL3 to prevent Novell from leveraging future versions of GNU code. Since some think that it would be prohibitively costly to fork and maintain all of that code independently, so it is assumed that such a move could potentially prevent Novell from distributing a Linux-based operating system with the latest versions of the GNU userspace software. This possibility has been broadly discussed since the deal between Microsoft and Novell was initially announced, and it is far from a "ban" on distributing Linux. Soon after the deal, open source advocate Bruce Perens commented "The C Library, essential to run every program on your system, is the property of the Free Software Foundation, which will surely re-license that library to LGPL 3."

In response to the controversial article, Eben Mogline has stated, although the quote in the Reuters article is accurate, the article "destroys the context and is making unnecessary waves."

Will the FSF try to push Novell out of the Linux market? At this point it is hard to say, but it seems highly unlikely. It is hard to tell whether or not such a licensing maneuver is even theoretically possible and there are still many unanswered questions. Although nobody doubts that forking the kernel would be prohibitively costly, the assumption may not necessarily be true for GNU userspace software. It is worth noting that there are BSD-licensed alternatives for several components, including libc. Regardless of the outcome, Novell will not be prevented from shipping Linux any time in the near future.